Thank you for finally talking. The mexico thing is not a joke. If you're a vegetarian who doesn't farm 100% of their own food, people are suffering, earning slave-wages and living in intolerable conditions so that you can eat. And they have for generations, and in greater numbers than you can fathom. These ants I'm talking about could do any number of other things for their sustenance. They could farm fungus like some species, or else turn to foraging and raiding other nests. But they choose to enslave other species, husband them and protect them to those of us who understand that, but you would say enslaved and born to die. I'm not defining us by the actions of ants, but I am illustrating that plenty of species use others to thrive, and gain evolutionary advantage by it. GM meat is something you have to discuss now, sorry to burst your bubble. It's expensive to produce, but it's being made, and more of it exists now than did a year ago, and the same will be true next year, and the year after that. Your last point, about 'true conservationism' is the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Refine your argument without it and we'll address wildlife management in a mature manner.
If I understand you correctly, your argument for eating meat is so that Mexican farmers don't suffer producing plants?! I'm really sorry to hear that you don't have any local farmer's markets where you can buy healthy fresh produce. I think I've made my point clear on survivalist decisions vs conscious decision making in our abundant era. The bottom line is, we know that we can live full healthy lives without exploiting animals, to still chose to do so because we can is not rational. Fine, want an answer on GM meat then please take my previous answer: It's fine as long as no one gets hurt. Simple. "Hey, I'll give you money if you let me shoot this deer so that you can save the deer." Replace deer with the name of any loved one and you'll see the ridiculousness of the idea of using killing to stop extinction. I find even hard to believe that I have to spell this out to you. Obviously we value life VERY differently.
Nope. My argument is that no method of feeding this world is without cruelty and suffering. We have a lot of growth to do as civilization before that will be otherwise. It probably won't happen in our lifetimes. I do. But it shows how privileged you are that you don't seem to count those who don't have such options as worthy of discussion. You have a theory, and very little evidence. You have no experience with wilderness, or wildlife management, that's what's really obvious. Would you prefer that there be fewer deer? That no one hunts them, so no one feels the need to preserve their habitats against the market forces that would develop them into high-rises and factory farms? That those few deer that do exist die by fang, or by blood poisoning from a broken bone? That they go extinct so that no one can hunt them? Obviously.If I understand you correctly, your argument for eating meat is so that Mexican farmers don't suffer producing plants?
I'm really sorry to hear that you don't have any local farmer's markets where you can buy healthy fresh produce.
The bottom line is, we know that we can live full healthy lives without exploiting animals, to still chose to do so because we can is not rational.
"Hey, I'll give you money if you let me shoot this deer so that you can save the deer." Replace deer with the name of any loved one and you'll see the ridiculousness of the idea of using killing to stop extinction.
Obviously we value life VERY differently.
It is true, we can never end all the suffering but we can minimise it with our everyday choices. I find it hard to believe that your only two options are eating animals or eating vegetables grown by exploited farmers! I don't know how expensive farmer's markets are in your area but in Europe they're still one of the cheapest places to buy fresh veg and fruit. Read the China Study if you still need scientific evidence that a veggie based diet is healthier than a meat one. Yes, yes, but of course, that was exactly my point. I'm tired of this conversation, it feels like we're not getting anywhere. Take what you will from it and peace out.You have a theory, and very little evidence.
Would you prefer that there be fewer deer?
For those who care to read and make up their own mind. Here's the rebuttal by Dr. Campbell, the author of The China Study, to the criticisms of the book. Excerpt:
"My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies. I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book. Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know, especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge, were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same information that I had come to know from the scientific literature and laboratory. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The idea works!"